Astonishing Bull's-eye!

[Thinking]

You won't find it there because the book itself has some interesting interpolations contained therein. Some of these conflict with some of LDS doctrines such as the identity of the Ancient of Days and so forth.

In other words, there are "astonishing" misses too.

[consiglieri]

I would agree that it applies to all "Scripture.:-but does the LDS Church officially consider the Book of Enoch as Scripture?

It is not in the Apocrypha-as some non-Catholics call the deutero-canonical books included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

Early versions of the KJV till 1885 and other Reformed era Bibles-put them in the back-but they were dropped. The Archbishop of Canterbury removed the Apocryphal books in 1885.

You can still purchase some non-Catholic Bibles including the KJV with the Apocrypha/deutero-canonical books included as an option.

Carol

Hi, Carol,

A number of purported Books of Enoch have surfaced relatively recently (i.e., the past 200-years); 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and some fragments from a Dead Sea Scroll Enoch, as well.

After 1 Enoch was discovered, some scholars suggested that its influence is written large all over the New Testament.

The LDS Church does not consider any of these books of Enoch as scriptural, but interestingly, in his "translation of Genesis," Joseph Smith added two long chapters of material about Enoch which could be (and has been) referred to as the Pearl of Great Price Book of Enoch, or PGP Enoch. You will find it in Moses chapters 6 and 7.

I (and some guy named Nibley) have written elsewhere regarding the astonishing multiplicity of parallels between the PGP Enoch and the Enochic literature.

I posted on it about a year ago to great hue-and-cry. Or was that pith-and-moment? I forget.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[changed]

For anyone who is interested, here is a nice collection of other ancient texts:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

Also, a few interesting Enoch articles:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me.../enoch_cal.html

The Book of Enoch, a "lost book" of the Bible which has been found, describes a 364-day calendar on which key dates in the life of Christ appear to fall on "holy days."

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...tellations.html

The Book of Enoch claims that an angel revealed the constellations to the ancient Prophet Enoch, and that appears to be true because they testify of Jesus Christ."

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...1/4corners.html

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...001/4stars.html

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...2/meridian.html

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...estoration.html

Enoch Calendar:Another Witness of the Restoration

Several key dates during the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints occurred on significant dates on the Hebrew Calendar. Now it has been discovered that the Enoch Calendar provides a second witness to the importance of many of those dates, including the date of the birth of the Church, and a proposed date for the First Vision.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...2/trumpets.html

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...002/vision.html

http://www.johnpratt.com

It appears that "John Pratt" has done a lot of work with Enoch...

I have read Enoch, and Jasher, a bit of the Apocrypha, and some of the Adam books. Really fun stuff. Most of what I have read does not contradict the scriptures, it adds in interesting details.

[MormonMason]

In other words, there are "astonishing" misses too.

Ummm...just because an ancient text contains interpolations does not discount the ancientness of the text nor does it invalidate other things contained therein. Just FYI. Please start doing what you have named yourself before spouting off so.

[Abulafia]

Consiglieri,

Just because this thread interested me, I wonder if there is any evidence that indicates Joseph Smith wouldn't have been acquainted with 1 Enoch?

I have always accepted that in terms of his interest in pseudopigrapha and apocryphal works, his interest in esoterica, magic, and the such like, that it would be highly likely?

Found this article, which adds interesting light on the subject.

http://www.cesnur.org/2006/sd_hadley.htm

Mary

[consiglieri]

Consiglieri,

Just because this thread interested me, I wonder if there is any evidence that indicates Joseph Smith wouldn't have been acquainted with 1 Enoch?

Thanks for the post, Mary.

I am glad this thread interests you. It is certainly theoretically possible that Joseph Smith could have been acquainted with 1 Enoch. I tend to doubt it, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

For myself, all I can say is that 1 Enoch is an exceptionally long book, containing over one hundred chapters, and I had read it before myself and did not notice the two passages quoted in the PM. I obviously read them, but didn't see any significance at the time. It was only recently when I was reading Margaret Barker's book, "Temple Theology," that she cited to them and I went back and looked, and darned if they weren't there. It was one of those things where I couldn't believe I had missed it, but needed sharper eyes than mine to see them.

So, once again, it is theoretically possible that Joseph Smith had access to 1 Enoch, and read it, and noticed these two relatively small verses, and saw in them something that he wanted to incorporate into his fictional book of scripture.

All of this is possible, but I tend to think it rather unlikely.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for the Cesnur link. Interesting that he referred to my Dialogue essay in response to Hutchinson's Dialogue essay, though without actually citing the source. He does not refer to my FARMS 16:1 essay which refers to Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View 2nd Ed. comments on Nibley. My footnote 180:

Compare D. Michael Quinn's remark: "Another common criticism of the Book of Mormon relates to its unusually extensive pre-Christian knowledge of Jesus Christ. . . . However, such details were consistent with previously published occult content in pseudepigraphic writings. Ten years before Smith published his translation of the Book of Mormon, Richard Laurence published his translation of the Ascent of Isaiah." D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 210. Quinn's endnote specifies that the text in question was published in England in 1819; it was referred to in an 1825 volume called Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Quinn, Early Mormonism, 211). Quinn claims that "various Book of Mormon details therefore were not unusual within the preexisting literature about heavenly ascent and about Enoch" (Quinn, Early Mormonism, 211). Quinn does not discuss the complexities of the ritual and historical context in which the details appear—that is, the Book of Mormon does not just describe the details that he lists, and many more besides, but it also accounts for those details via a specific view of history, places them in a specific historical tradition rooted in a crucial time and place, offers them within a complex ritual context, and describes both the loss and recovery of those plain and precious things in prophetic passages. See my "Paradigms Regained," FARMS Occasional Papers 2 (2001): 15–25. Quinn does not specify whether or not Joseph Smith obtained or was influenced by a knowledge of the Ascension of Isaiah or by access to an American Bible commentary, being content to publicly face the remote possibility—the mark of a real scholar (see Quinn, Early Mormonism, xi). Quinn also gives no examples of any Book of Mormon critics or defenders in the first generations ever calling attention to such potential sources. Compared to Joseph Smith, Abner Cole the newspaper editor, John Gilbert the printer, or Alexander Campbell the second-generation religious leader seems far more likely to have encountered such materials, in terms of educational background and financial capability. Nor did any of Joseph's neighbors, nor his family, who presumably would have had equivalent access, ever suggest such sources. The rise of the Spaulding theory shows that Joseph's critics had the will to track down any promising rumor and to expose any potential source.

My impression of the Censur essay is that it avoided dealing with the specifics of the arguments for or against Joseph Smith having access, whether direct or indirect, to the Lawrence Enoch, being content to approach the question loftily, at a safely abstracted level. Better than Salmon's cherry picking a few points that he can challenge, and then trusting insinuation to do the real work. I liked Professor Hamblin's informed and careful response to Salmon. Nibley tells the story about how Father Black, the priest/scholar who translated the DSS Enoch refused to comment on the Enoch parallels to our Book of Moses, except to say that some day we'll find the source Joseph Smith used.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[MormonMason]

I checked and found that the chances that Joseph Smith had contact with 1 Enoch were between very slim and none. I checked the publication data, which Quinn fudged. The edition he claimed that Joseph Smith had to have used was published in the US. It wasn't. In fact, the edition which finally did make its way into the US was in 1833--too late to be of use--and this 1833 edition said that the previous two editions were so rare that scholars all over Continental Europe had come to the conclusion that the book had been suppressed for some reason. Check the preface to the third edition. The story is told there about this.

[Anijen]

I checked and found that the chances that Joseph Smith had contact with 1 Enoch were between very slim and none. I checked the publication data, which Quinn fudged. The edition he claimed that Joseph Smith had to have used was published in the US. It wasn't. In fact, the edition which finally did make its way into the US was in 1833--too late to be of use--and this 1833 edition said that the previous two editions were so rare that scholars all over Continental Europe had come to the conclusion that the book had been suppressed for some reason. Check the preface to the third edition. The story is told there about this.

Thank you for that. I have found it interesting that Quinn fudged on that and I have to add that to what his agenda might be. it makes me go hmmm.

[MormonMason]

Thank you for that. I have found it interesting that Quinn fudged on that and I have to add that to what his agenda might be. it makes me go hmmm.

He, as well as others of the New Mormon History ilk want to find a more naturalistic link between ideas of Joseph Smith and his environment. Fact is, I have yet to find any legitmate evidence of Joseph Smith's being familiar with any part of 1 Enoch, much less any of the Enoch literature that exists.

This priceless manuscript, destined, some day, to reveal the forgotten source of many Christian dogmas and mysteries, rested in Bodleian obscurity, until presented to the world through an English translation by Dr. Laurence, Archbishop of Cashel, formerly Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who issued his first edition in 1821, in apparent unconsciousness that he was giving to mankind the theological fossils through which we, in the clearer light of our generation, may study the "Evolution of Christianity."

The scarcity of Archbishop Laurence's translation, before the publication of the second edition in 1833, produced an impression in Germany that the work had been suppressed by its author; but this report is contradicted in the preface to the third edition, issued in 1838, in response to a large order from America.

(The Book of Enoch the Prophet, 1883 edition, reprint, Secret Doctrine Reference Series [1983, San Diego: Wizards Bookshelf], vii-viii; bold emphasis mine)

FYI.

[Abulafia]

Kevin, Consiglieri,

As pretty much a layman (non-expert) on this subject, I felt the Censur article was very measured.

It made a lot of sense, and I thought that they dealt with the LDS apologists quite nicely.

For me, if other scholars have looked at Beowulf, seen the influence of Enoch and then looked for evidence of access to Enoch and found it, then why not take a similar stance to Joseph Smith's works that contain (apparant) influence of Enochian writings?

Kaske accounts for I Enoch in Beowulf by suggesting that a Latin translation had crossed the poetâ??s path:

By happy chanceâ?¦ a manuscript in the British Museum contains a twenty-five-line fragment of what was evidently a Latin translation of the Book of Enoch; and by still happier chance, this manuscript seems to have originated in England during the eighth century. This slender remnant, pointing strongly to the availability of the Book of Enoch in Latin somewhere in England and during the probable century of Beowulf, will allow us to take seriously any convincing parallels that can be found between the two works.[4]

Again with Milton's Paradise Lost, even if he didn't have direct access to Enoch, he might have been aware of the general story lines through popular culture?

I see Joseph Smith as a man of his time, he was influenced by many, so don't see a problem with a premise that he had access to many different theological ideas and writings, he was certainly (surely?) interested in early christianity. I therefore don't see why the apologists have to jump to a conclusion that rules out a more 'mundane' origin for many of his theological writings and ideas? A 'God helps those who help themselves' kind of thing.

Doesn't rule out inspiration, but means that Joseph might have been less original in terms of theological ideas? (could say the same of Jesus of Nazareth of course)

Hope that makes sense.

Were there 1821 translation copies floating around in American society at that time? Were Enochian ideas used by Masons and other religious groups? Did the translation cause any excitement amongst academic circles at the time? Is it likely that any of Joseph's associates, had access to Enochian ideas?

Did Ellen White get her ideas independent of Joseph Smith or was she influenced by revelation? Does her interest have a mundane or heavenly origin?

Found this quote on the influence of Enochian ideas within Royal Arch Masonry?

http://www.masonicfax.net/enoch.htm

Albert Mackey:

After all, it would appear that the Legend of Enoch, being wholly

unknown to the Fraternity in the Middle Ages, unrecognized in the

Legend of the Craft, and the name even, not mentioned in any of the

old records, was first introduced into the rituals of some of the

higher degrees which began to be fabricated toward the middle of

the 18th century; that it was invented by the Chevalier Ramsay, or

by some of those ritual-mongers who immediately succeeded him, and

that in its fabrication very copious suggestions were borrowed from

the Rabbinical and Oriental traditions on the same subject.

Don't entirely agree with this, if the British Museum has an 8th Century latin copy of (part of) Enoch. It makes sense that copies might have been used by a number of monasteries and abbeys in the middle ages? The strands through the centuries, of Enochian influence, are there surely?

Mary